https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356071 Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 was treated as admissible for input services used in the excavation and export of iron ore, because exports should not bear domestic tax burden. Objections that nil-rated export of final products barred credit were rejected on the stated refund policy. The debit note objection also failed, as Rule 9(2) permits credit on documents containing the required particulars, subject to departmental verification. Reliance on Notification No. 24/2010-C.E. (N.T.) did not assist the Revenue, as it was held inapplicable to 100% EOU clearances in the manner argued. The refund was therefore upheld. en-us Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Feb 2018 08:21:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356071 Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 was treated as admissible for input services used in the excavation and export of iron ore, because exports should not bear domestic tax burden. Objections that nil-rated export of final products barred credit were rejected on the stated refund policy. The debit note objection also failed, as Rule 9(2) permits credit on documents containing the required particulars, subject to departmental verification. Reliance on Notification No. 24/2010-C.E. (N.T.) did not assist the Revenue, as it was held inapplicable to 100% EOU clearances in the manner argued. The refund was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356071